Create VIOSO warp panel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the 'create' action in the description. The description adds that the tool produces a scaffold with specific elements, but does not disclose external dependencies (e.g., VIOSO software), project prerequisites, or implications of the config_file parameter, so it adds only modest behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single 15-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key deliverables. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description gives a useful high-level summary but lacks important operational context: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing project, VIOSO installation), the exact node structure created, behavior without a config_file, or expected output; given the 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a partial but not complete picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, leaving active, projector_index, and blend_zone_count undocumented. The tool description loosely references 'blend-zone maps' and 'projector metadata,' which map to blend_zone_count and projector_index, but it does not explicitly explain these parameters or compensate for the missing schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a VIOSO projection-warp scaffold' and lists the included components (VIOSO TOP, blend-zone maps, projector metadata, setup notes). This distinguishes it from generic tools like create_projection_mapping or create_mpcdi_projection_mapper.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for VIOSO warp panel creation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, though the name and title make the primary use case somewhat evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.